I find it pretty hard to debate who should play out of a squad that isn't even pretending it's the best it can be. I just think, well, they're not interested in who should play, really, so why should I be? Just give a few blokes a go and see what happens. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Just because they're resting a couple of star players who play all formats of the game, it doesn't mean that they don't give a toss about the games or aren't trying to pick the best possible XI from the remaining players they have.

Just because they're resting a couple of star players who play all formats of the game, it doesn't mean that they don't give a toss about the games or aren't trying to pick the best possible XI from the remaining players they have.

Yea, it's not like they are friendlies or anything. they are international games ffs.
and in subcontinent limited overs stuff is what people watch and care about.

Besides die hard cricket fans, who has the time and patience to watch 5 day stuff in this day and age. Worst still, those games can even end in no result after 5 days of ****ing play. No wonder Germany still don't play after Hitler deemed the sport to be the biggest disgrace ever for the same reasons.

In the situation you describe, I absolutely think Dhoni/Bevan/Hussey are better batsmen than their support cast, and their averages are a healthy reflection of that.

Are they more valuable? Yes.

But you are saying that the batsman ends up with the average he deserves. These other guys could end up with better averages if they had the license to play that role, but if you have two guys taking 30 balls to get themselves in at a similar time, by pushing it around, then it becomes too much of a risk if you lose a wicket and have let the RRR climb too high.

Not necessarily, because a guy might have to go from the start to allow Dhoni/Bevan/Hussey to play themselves in with singles, and not let the pressure build up too much; and those guys who have the role of seeing the game through get the chance to make up for their slower start, whilst others have to make the running, getting out early, so can end up with the same strike rate!

Yeah I agree with this to a large extent, in most cases that I've seen Dhoni and Raina bat together it's usually Raina who is asked to get going before Dhoni does, in fact there was an article recently where it showed how Dhoni only goes berserk in the final 5 overs.

That is not to say Raina is in Dhoni's league, but Raina's role is still a fair bit different than Dhoni's even though they bat lower down the order.

But you are saying that the batsman ends up with the average he deserves. These other guys could end up with better averages if they had the license to play that role, but if you have two guys taking 30 balls to get themselves in at a similar time, by pushing it around, then it becomes too much of a risk if you lose a wicket and have let the RRR climb too high.

See: Pakistan vs India WC SF.

I dont think you are being serious. Every player performs the role that they know and are capable of performing best. You can't exactly take a Sehwag and tell him to bat like Bevan for the rest of his career, the guy would average half of what he does now and vice versa. AFAIC, the reason why players like Raina et al take more risk at the start of their innings is because they are incapable of turning the strike over consistently and/or unable to resist the temptation of taking risk when it is quite clearly not required.

Also, while I understand that you are referring to the accumulator type role, I don't necessarily agree with the idea of lumping Bevan in there. People talk about Bevan's innings' as though he spent the majority of his career coming in in the 20th over of the match and had the time to smoke a cigar, bang a chick, and then get his act together to finish off the innings. The reality is that Bevan was one of the best finishers in the game for precisely the reason that he didn't need time to get settled in! Much to my own chagrin, Australia ensured that he spent the latter half of his career coming in after the 35th over so that he batted in just the last 10-15 overs, I don't quite understand how he was given time to play in during these circumstances. Quite frankly, the reason why it appeared that Bevan took less risk than every other player on the planet was because of the fact that no one else managed to master the ODI game in the manner in which he did. Here was a guy who was capable of scoring at over a run a ball all while barely hitting a single boundary and taking a single risk. Theres something to be said about his ability to work out angles, deft footwork, soft hands and running like a bloody hare - it made the game simpler than it actually was. Of course, the fact that he cracked the game and didn't need to slog every other ball into the stands to score at exactly the same SR as some of the cleanest hitters in the game meant that people will forever assume that he spent his career playing for not outs.

Last edited by tooextracool; 25-01-2013 at 09:13 PM.

Tendulkar = the most overated player EVER!!
Beckham = the most overated footballer EVER!!
Vassell = the biggest disgrace since rikki clarke!!

And smalishah's avatar is the most classy one by far Jan certainly echoes the sentiments of CW

Yeah we don't crap in the first world; most of us would actually have no idea what that was emanating from Ajmal's backside. Why isn't it roses and rainbows like what happens here? PEWS's retort to Ganeshran on Daemon's picture depicting Ajmal's excreta

But you are saying that the batsman ends up with the average he deserves. These other guys could end up with better averages if they had the license to play that role, but if you have two guys taking 30 balls to get themselves in at a similar time, by pushing it around, then it becomes too much of a risk if you lose a wicket and have let the RRR climb too high.

See: Pakistan vs India WC SF.

I also said that only tradeoff exists with SR. So these guys are trading off their averages with SRs. And they settle for low average, high SR rather than other way around, because they are possibly not equipped to do it differently. At the end they end up with an average - SR combination that they deserve.

I am not saying ftr that a good batsman is good in every role (agree here with TC), but I think average and SR taken together enable comparison of value of batsmen in different roles in their respective roles, without requiring any hand waving adjustments for role or batting position (something solidly backed up by data to show difference in batting conditions, state of the ball, types of fields set up etc would be admissible though). By that do I mean Dhoni should be considered better batsman than Tendulkar? Only thing that prevents me from saying that is longevity factor, their roles and batting positions have nothing to do with it.

I also said that only tradeoff exists with SR. So these guys are trading off their averages with SRs. And they settle for low average, high SR rather than other way around, because they are possibly not equipped to do it differently. At the end they end up with an average - SR combination that they deserve.

I am not saying ftr that a good batsman is good in every role (agree here with TC), but I think average and SR taken together enable comparison of value of batsmen in different roles in their respective roles, without requiring any hand waving adjustments for role or batting position (something solidly backed up by data to show difference in batting conditions, state of the ball, types of fields set up etc would be admissible though). By that do I mean Dhoni should be considered better batsman than Tendulkar? Only thing that prevents me from saying that is longevity factor, their roles and batting positions have nothing to do with it.

You are misunderstanding my point.

Dhoni, for example, ends up with a similar strike rate because he's given the license to get himself in and suck up some dot balls. It's easier to go berserk having faced 40 balls than it is after 10.

Because of this, the trade-off in strike rate doesn't occur; Dhoni makes up for it later on during the last 10, whilst the batsman who takes the earlier risks still ends up with a similar strike rate if those risks get him out. It's not like Raina comes out and tries to go at 150 SR.

meh i don't mind it, in fact i probably welcome it. New ideas and different people should help to keep players minds fresh on long tours. If they were rotating batting coaches for test series' that wouldn't be particularly effective with different advice from different coaches causing confusion but these are different formats. And coaches as well as players must get stale and bored with each others company and day to day actions so refreshing the squads and coaching staff should/could be productive.